jaawn
jaawn
About
- Username
- jaawn
- Joined
- Visits
- 71
- Last Active
Comments
-
Man...I feel this. I'm sorry you started playing just before the changes. You sound so discouraged and that sucks! I've played this game off and on for years and to be honest I feel pretty much the same way about all of it. It just isn't fun now and I haven't been playing because of that. I hope they fix things, but...there is a lot to fix 😕
-
@CMANsurvives said:
The community is overreacting to this update. It's fine. Let it be. Calm down. Learn what works now and what doesn't. If you should be complaining about anything, it's that Behaviour didn't do anything to fix solo queue. That's it. Anything else is pretty much just unwarranted whining. Get over yourselves.
lmao...I am literally not playing until stuff gets better. I tried to give the changes a chance, and it is just awful. It's not overreacting, it's just not fun. You can say people are being dumb all you want but if it kills queue times or ultimately hurts the health of the game... you (or at least BHVR) should probably listen.
-
@Fantasy said:
Why do you think you're entitled to a free escape out of the basement?
There are currently like 113 survivor perks, of which players can use 4. How does BT (a single perk) lasting longer constitute a "free escape"??? If you take that perk it means you can't take some other perk...
-
@Seraphor said:
Absolutely not.
Between players who dont speak english, players who sinply ignore it, players who use it to be racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive, and just flat out children, there is absolutely no way this would improve solo survivor in any way, purely negatives all round.
What soloq needs is info, not garbled slurs screamed at you in Russian.
That means:
Being able to see your teammates loadouts.
Contextual action icons over player portraits.
A quick chat function that includes maybe 4 to 6 preset messages.
Some kind of limited ping system, like killer instinct for survivors.
Soloq doesn't actually need that much, it just needs to be able to convey some limited but crucial information. Its still up to the players to act on that information correctly, but you can never fix that.
100% agree with this. More (and clearer info) and some kind of quick communication feature (e.g. "I'm on my way to the hook" or "they found me!" or "heal here" etc... with reasonable cooldowns/anti-spam measures). It needs to be easy to use, encouraged, and obvious. That would help way more than voice chat without the downsides.
-
@badkarma said:
I'm doing my part by camping, tunneling and essentially making the game as not-fun, yet within intended gameplay parameters, as possible.
I'm particularly showing newbies with 20 hours how much unfun they can have in the game and how much unfun they'll continue to have via this recent and amazing patch that is both recent and amazing. Doing my part to 'play fair' and use different perks to make their experience as DbD as possible
😐...
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3103340#Comment_3103340
For reference, the site does track percentages for each kill bracket as well (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) and the spread is about 23% 0 kills, 19% 1 kill, 14% 2 kills, 15% 3 kills and 29% 4 kills. So just about half the matches eiher everybody escapes or everybody dies, and the rest are a mix of escapes and deaths. It tends to the extremes but not nearly as much as being all or nothing 50% no kills and 50% no escapes.
And a 7% increase isn’t problematic assuming the devs are aiming for 56% kill rate and not 49% kill rate overall. They said a few times they felt the kill rate was too low and one of the goals of the patch was to raise it. Going from being slightly survivor sided in their opinion to slightly killer sided is totally fine.
Of course in a game like this there are all sorts of things that come into play, including specific killers used and loadouts and maps and swfs and backfills creating MmR mismatches, etc. But I’m fairly sure their plan is put in the broadscale changes in this patch to shift the overall stats to where they want them, let it settle a bit, then fine tune the specific cases that are a bit out of whack. So get all the killers boosted a bit then pare back things like STBFL or Legion + Thana, etc, as needed.
That kill distribution is flipped from what would be healthy. That shows the problem right there and is exactly the shape I would have predicted. It's inverted (most matches are either 0 kills or 4 kills). That is the opposite of how it should be. The highest % should be 2 kills, then slightly lower for 1 kill and 3 kill, then lowest for 0 kills and 4 kills. That would be a healthy distribution.
Unless my math is off, the average # of kills based on those stats is 2.08. Again, this perfectly illustrates what I was talking about. That average is almost exactly at the target of 2 kills per match, which sounds good... until you look at the distribution and it is way off of what it should be. This means it is way too common for matches to either be a breeze for the killer or a breeze for the survivors. Yes, the average is 2, but 2-kill outcomes are the least likely outcome...which is the opposite of what would be best.
-
@roundpitt said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3102861#Comment_3102861
I invite you to go look at Evil Dead. The developers of that game kept nerfing killers until no one wanted to play killer. The queues got so bad that they merged their servers together which temporarily lowered survivor queue times, but now I see people on reddit complaining that Evil Dead survivor queue times are so bad that they can't get into matches for hours.
So yea, if you make on side not fun, people will stop playing my dude. Then you end up with a dead game.
This is exactly the wrong mentality. These games should not be seen as 2 sides competing for fun. If the developers are trying to make one "side" more fun at the expense of the other "side", they've already failed. The game design & mechanics should be fun for both "sides" in concert. A killer ability should be fun to use and fun to run from. A survivor ability should be fun to use and fun to chase.
-
@dugman said:
The average kill rate since the patch went up 12 days ago is about 7% higher than it was prepatch on the aggregate site I'm following (it was about 49% pre-patch and I'm estimating it's been 56% post-patch). So the average kill rate definitely isn't 75% or whatever.
Aggregate stats can be very misleading. If you do a case study of 100 players, and look at their experience across 10 matches, and 50 of the players have all 10 matches be 4-kill matches, while the other 50 players have all 10 be 0-kill matches, the average will be 2 kills per match...but there is still a massive problem. There are so many different playstyles, different skill levels, different mixes of SWF groups vs solo, different types of players (both within survivor players and killer players), that looking at a single average across the board is very likely to lead to a misguided view on where things stand. Maybe factors in my situation make me more likely to run into trouble, I don't know... but the average alone doesn't mean a whole lot, and even so... a 7-point jump up to 56% is problematic, especially if it really was already at around 50-50.
-
I'm glad to see it isn't just me. Hopefully there is enough pushback to shake BHVR out of the weird mindset they're in right now. The game isn't about taking fun away from one "side" and giving it to the other until things are "equal". Everything should be fun for everyone. Obviously that can't be 100% true, but that should be the goal to aspire to.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3102861#Comment_3102861
...... What? There's always gonna be a meta. True and perfect balance is a nice dream, but expecting everything to be perfectly balanced is impossible. Every video game works this way.
There is a difference between a "meta" and not being able to play/have fun/be successful unless you use certain builds. "Meta" is about what is optimal (or popular) right now, not what is viable. Everything should be viable.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
I just escaped three games in a row. Bubba, pinhead and huntress. I've been getting way more consecutive escapes than I did previously. My go-to build has been Shadowstep, Circle of healing, Dead Hard and a wild perk. Botany or windows or spine chill.
My assessment is that people sleep on Shadowstep. It's an incredible perk. Denied so much Nurse's calling, floods of rage BBQ and bitter murmur value. I even got to deny that hatchet addon that reveals auras which felt really good.
Maybe that build is decent right now, but you shouldn't need a "go-to" build to be successful. That means there is a problem. Ideally, everything should be viable. Choices should be based on preferences and what playstyle is fun for you. I am not interested in doing a detailed analysis of all the perk stats on the wiki and building an optimal combination of perks or something. I just want to have fun. The game should always prioritize fun over everything else, and just because it is an asymmetric struggle between a killer and 4 survivors doesn't mean it can't be fun for everyone involved. Right now, it seems like BHVR is trying to "balance" fun because they can't figure out how to make the game fun for both "sides". This is causing problems. Any specific build that is stronger than others may help people be more successful, but it doesn't help fix the issues or make the game more fun.
-
The TOS and EULA say it is a violation to "Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service...".
These statements conflict with the language on the rules page which asks players not to report "camping", because of the specific type of camping where a survivor is hooked at the start of a match and then is stubbornly camped until death on their first hook, thus prematurely halting their ability to play the game, removing opportunity for getting points/rewards/etc. The documents may work "in conjunction" with each other in general, but in this instance they conflict. Thus the EULA takes precedence and this behavior should be treated as a violation. It doesn't mean all actions which could be called "camping" are somehow a violation, but the kind where someone basically doesn't get to play the game definitely is.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883770#Comment_2883770
I mean, yeah, it sucks to be camped on the hook with nothing to do but dangle there.
It's incredibly selfish
It comes down to priorities and empathy. Some people would see empathy in this situation as a weakness. I remember coming across a writeup where someone said that empathizing with your opponent is a weakness, winners do whatever is necessary. Only losers play nice. yadda yadda yadda.
Personally, I have a huge problem playing killer because I don't like taking people out of the match, which means I often don't enjoy killing, which makes me kind of crap at the role because I don't put in the effort to win, I just kind of screw around. I absolutely hate playing to reach Iri 1 because I can't give second chances, I can't play nice, no matter how bad the team seems to be doing I have to tunnel someone out if I am given the opportunity. I learned that very quickly when I was trying to pip up, and it made me miserable.
So, again, it's all very subjective. To some people, "selfish" doesn't enter into the equation, it's just about winning. At the other extreme, there are people like me. And then you have a million shades of grey in between.
I try not to judge people for playing to win when I don't like their tactics. I don't feel that overpowering drive to win, and that's a me thing.
Playing killer doesn't require a lack of empathy. I know a lot of very nice people who enjoy playing killer...and they "play to win" without facecamping anyone...ever lol. Why are you legitimizing this? It isn't normal gameplay, it isn't normal behavior. It isn't about it "sucking" to be on a hook. It isn't even about being on the hook, like I keep saying. Hooks are a normal part of the game. However, this is hooking someone with zero opportunity for an unhook (at least not a successful unhook). This is removing someone's ability to play entirely, not putting them on a hook temporarily. That is not a normal part of the game.
If someone found out that if a killer hooks someone and then hits them in the back twice, it causes a bug where they cannot be unhooked so long as the killer stands within 4 meters of that hook, and people exploited that bug for kills...it'd be bannable, reportable, and everyone would universally agree that it isn't okay for someone to do that. However, the outcome is functionally identical to the type of camping I am talking about. It doesn't make sense to me for one of them to be "okay" but the other is not when they have the same result. I think of this type of face camping to be exploiting the freedom of gameplay to block someone from playing the game. Similar to how blocking someone in a corner and not letting them move is also exploiting the freedom of gameplay to stop someone from being able to play.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883645#Comment_2883645
And this is where the thread is going in circles, because a lot of people disagree that it's toxic, which means it's subjective, not objective.
I specifically used in my example the exact thing you're talking about, camping out the first person they catch. It is a tactic, because it gets the game down to a 3v1, which is the best way to slow down gen repair if the survivors don't punish it (which they should, because if survivors punish a killer for camping by slamming out gens, killers will learn that facecamping the first person they catch is a bad tactic).
it should only be punished if someone is continuously doing this specific thing, i.e. stopping other players from playing the game
And this is why I keep saying it's bad game design, because the killer's objective is to basically stop survivors from playing the game. The survivor's job is to do gens, and the killer's job in part is to stop survivors from doing gens. Back before Nurse was nerfed, the best Nurses could practically stop a gen from ever being touched. They'd load in, quickly down all four survivors, then put each one on a hook. That was the end of a match. No one got to make a hook save or repair a gen. That is the killer doing their BHVR-given job. Was it fun? No, and that's why Nurse was nerfed, because god Nurses were ridiculously OP and gave survivors no chance to play the game. But that's how the game was designed, so no one was banned for it.
There are ways for the other survivors to punish camping and the devs are working on creating an in-game way to discourage facecamping. I've seen survivors who were being facecamped get away. DS, BT, and teamwork can all lead to a 0k, I've seen it happen and I've helped make it happen. The devs value those sorts of plays. Yeah, it's kind of strange, and I think they put too much value on player agency sometimes, but it's the statement they've made in the past as seen here: https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Developer_Q%26A%27s#Are_there_any_plans_to_punish_facecampers.3F
The effects on the "team" of survivors isn't what I'm focused on here. Yes, the other 3 survivors could rush gens and all get out thus "punishing" the camping.... that does nothing to enable the camped player to get a chance to play the game. That's what I'm focused on. I guess technically it is some kind of tactic, but it is a toxic tactic because they are knowingly sacrificing a human being's ability to play the game so that they can turn it into a 1v3 instead of 1v4. That is toxic. It's incredibly selfish to say "nah you don't get to play this one because I want to give myself an advantage".
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883546#Comment_2883546
Yeah, I know they get these reports, which is why they keep stressing it's not bannable and tell people not to submit those reports, but can you imagine the ridiculous number they'd get if they came out and said it is bannable? Every survivor who has a bad game would submit a report. I've been accused of stuff I never did during the match because the survivor's view of what the killer is doing is both limited and biased.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883547#Comment_2883547
It feels toxic, but it's rarely personal. It's a tactic. Not a good one, not a fun one, but a tactic nonetheless. Almost every time someone comes on these forums asking what they're supposed to do to slow down gens, multiple responses will tell them to tunnel one survivor out as fast as possible. That's the truth, going from a 4v1 to a 3v1 is unfortunately the best way to slow down gens. So, a killer who struggles with chases and struggles with gen pressure catches one survivor, puts them on a hook, and then tries to get them to die as fast as possible. Some hit survivors on the hook to say "hurry up and die." Some hit survivors on the hook because they (no joke) think it speeds up the sacrifice process.
(I'm not saying camping is never done to be malicious, only that it's rarer than most people think. Just like a lot of teabagging is tactical rather than toxic, trying to get a killer to chase you instead of someone who's dead on hook.)
I hate when I'm camped first thing, most people hate when it happens to them. But it's bad game design. It's human nature to take the easiest path, and the easiest paths are 1. 3v1, and 2. camping. So that's what players will do, they'll do the easiest things that provide the best results.
How I or you or any other player interprets the EULA is irrelevant. How BHVR meant it, what they interpret it to mean, is the only deciding factor in the end. You can argue it for the rest of your life, but the best outcome you could hope for is to see the EULA changed to remove the word "enjoy." If that's your end goal, then okay, cool.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883550#Comment_2883550
The devs rarely comment on the forums about what they're up to anymore because it usually bites them in the ass. Devs actually used to be somewhat active here, but I think the community's attitude kind of chased them off. They occasionally have dev streams on Twitch where they might mention what they're working on, but they keep "things in progress" to a minimum because once you say you're working on it then people expect to see it and see it soon. There are things the devs mentioned working on years ago that got scrapped, but people act like those were promised and still bring them up to this day.
So, the devs aren't going to comment on it, and I don't think the staff/mods are allowed to comment on ongoing projects.
I wasn't trying to say that we'll see results in the near future, only that the devs do care and are working on it.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883594#Comment_2883594
First off, here's a link to DbD's Twitch, where they do their dev streams: https://www.twitch.tv/deadbydaylight/
Here's a link with some other details about how the devs view camping (and why they refrain from banning people for doing it): https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Developer_Q%26A%27s#Are_there_any_plans_to_punish_facecampers.3F
And here's the link you actually asked for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIocxDbQ-9g&t=2740s
I appreciate the links, and that you put a lot into this post, but one main thing I want to clear up is: it doesn't matter if it is personal or not, and the specific type of camping I am focusing on is objectively toxic. I'm not talking about "all stuff any survivor would claim counts as camping". I am talking about camping someone to death on first hook, refusing to chase anyone else, etc... until they are dead. I have specified it many, many times in this thread.
If a killer hooks the first survivor they find, and then stands there watching them until they die (i.e. they don't even attempt to do anything else, if another survivor shows up, they don't chase them, etc...). That is 100% toxic. You are ignoring normal gameplay, other opportunities, etc and forcibly removing a player's ability to play the game. Full stop. That goes against the legal language in the EULA. The killer has many other things they could be doing, they are actively choosing not to do them *even when other survivors show up and give them a perfect opportunity to go win a chase and hook someone else.*
That means, in this specific scenario, it is not "a tactic", it is forcing someone not to play for dubious reasons. It could be for an easy kill, it could be because they enjoy controlling someone like that, it could be because they just hate the character that person is playing...etc. The reason doesn't really matter, because in the end it is forcing someone to not play. This specific example is always wrong, always toxic for the game, and should be reportable and bannable. No one should be banned just because they got reported "for camping", it should only be punished if someone is continuously doing this specific thing, i.e. stopping other players from playing the game.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883540#Comment_2883540
No, being on a hook doesn't at all make you "unable to play". You're playing the game, it's just that part of the game happens to have a really boring aspect to it where you're stuck on a hook sometimes. Part of the game being dull though doesn't mean players are violating a legal document when it happens.
What the EULA is referring to is primarily exploits and hacks and actual literal harassment in chat. In fact the bullet point you're referring to
- Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide a BHVR Service for the enjoyment of all its users.
Is entirely within the context of other points that are dealing with people actually either cheating, hacking, harassing others in chat, and so on. This bullet point isn't talking about "camping a hook", it's talking about things like DDOS'ing the Service (note the word service in that bullet point) so that players can't access it.
I am not talking about "being on a hook," that's a strawman. Read any of my other posts more closely to see the specific thing I'm talking about.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883499#Comment_2883499
... out of curiosity, you do know BHVR is working on a way to discourage camping within the game, right? It's not an easy fix, because everything they've tested in the past is easily abused by halfway-coordinated survivors, but the devs seemed pretty optimistic about their current idea when they mentioned it in a recent stream. Even if they don't go through with that one, I doubt they'll just give up.
Most people, including the devs, don't want killers standing around staring at a hook for two minutes waiting for someone to die. But the point of this thread is to encourage banning people who camp, and that's not a reasonable response to the issue. It's highly unlikely they'd ever make it bannable because if nothing else it's not enforceable. They'd have to hire a ridiculous number of people to deal with the fact that every match from now until the end of time would be reported for a camping killer, and most reports would be thrown out, but BHVR would still need people to look at each report individually. It's an unreasonable ask.
I didn't know that, but that is very encouraging. That should help a lot, depending on their approach. However, regardless of any systems to discourage it, the 1 specific type of camping I mentioned should be reportable. Camping someone to death on 1st hook at the beginning of a match is toxic behavior that is bad for the game and violates the EULA. Other examples might be debatable because of the circumstance, I don't dispute that, but that one example is a clear cut violation.
-
@Marc_123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883496#Comment_2883496
Maybe you don´t understand it but that is ok.
"Sometimes, in the process of that fun, there are challenges and frustrations that make it even more fun when you over come them."
That is the key sentence.
You sound pretty angry to me with what you don´t like and want to changed so that you can play. Angry and mad is not bad it is just psychology.
Don´t you feel extremely good when you barely escape or get hooked twice at the beginning of the match (happened to me today with a billy) and your team turns this though lost match and gets 3 escaped at the end?
Not always - but the more frustrating something is - the higher the feeling of overcoming it. Has something to do with the energy you invest in it. (Or you just hate it)
Again - like Dark Souls :-)
You are incredibly off base. I'm not "just mad" or something lmao. This is pure logic. The EULA is clear, the specific type of camping I highlighted is clear. They contradict, that's it. I think the EULA's language is the right thing to uphold here. Everyone should have the ability to enjoy playing the game. All killers, all survivors, no exceptions. If they don't like the game, that's fine, but that's not what this is about. No one gets guaranteed fun, obviously. We're only talking about their ability to play. Stubbornly facecamping someone to death on 1st hook removes a player's ability to play. It is simple. I understand it all perfectly fine.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883466#Comment_2883466
It think this has got the the point of going around in circles. At the end of the day it's BHVR's EULA and it's up to them to decide what violates it. I have see nothing to suggest that they see it as a violation. So until they do, it's not going to be a bannable offence whether you think it should be or not.
No, a EULA is a legal document. Whether or not something is violating it is not solely up to BHVR. They are free to change the EULA if they want, but facecamping someone to death on their 1st hook and refusing to chase any other survivors that come by, etc... is objectively violating the current EULA. Maybe BHVR wants to allow that behavior, but then they need to change the EULA.
-
@Marc_123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883466#Comment_2883466
No, that example doesn´t work and you should know that.
And also no, as much as you want it to be "illegal" - the killer can play this way if he wants to.
The team can try or they just do gens and escape. Part of the game.
We know that often the team tries and fails and therefore makes it work better than it should maybe. And if the killer only kill one that is his problem (or not really).
You are missing the point that the whole and only goal of the kiler is to kill you. You can talk against that all you want.
The nature of the game is to make you feel angry and mad - and sometimes extremely joyful - i still think this is its key success point.
The engagement is really high. I like to compare it to Dark Souls. It is hard and frustrating and there is no easy mode. You love it and bite through it and get rewarded for your successes or you hate it.
"The nature of the game is to make you feel angry and mad" -- this is absolutely untrue. What? I have never, ever heard anyone make that argument. The nature of the game is... to be fun. Just like any other game. Sometimes, in the process of that fun, there are challenges and frustrations that make it even more fun when you over come them. But that is a perfect example...being facecamped to death on 1st hook does not give that survivor the opportunity to overcome any challenge. They literally just can't play. They are stuck, unable to do anything, until they die.
"No" is not a valid argument. You're going to need to explain why my example doesn't work. It seems valid to me.
When you just respond "no" it says to me you really aren't thinking about it and instead you're just saying you don't like it. It doesn't matter what you like or don't like, what matters in the context of the EULA/TOS is that they are adhered to fairly so that all players (BOTH killers and survivors) have an equal opportunity to enjoy playing the game.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
And if a survivor crouches repeatedly or clicks their flashlight too many times in a row too fast they should be banned too honestly for upsetting the killer
Neither of those actions prevent anyone from playing the game. It's not about people being upset, it's about them not even being able to *play the game*. It has nothing to do with whether they live/die or whatever, it is just about them not even having a chance.
-
@Marc_123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2883182#Comment_2883182
But that is my point.
You are playing - even if you get hooked - because this is part of the game. It still is a team game. Your team should save you. AS you should save others.
If you don´t like that - that is your problem and maybe then not your game. But you are playing.
And you can´t dictate how anyone "has to" play. If some want to be silent and do nothing it is up to him and probably bad your team - but then it is that way. Nobody is forced to do anything.
If he manages to escape then - as we know - this was a pretty skillful play.
Being camped is "playing" DBD in the same way that being in a penalty box is "playing" hockey...i.e. it isn't playing at all. If someone throws a hockey player over the wall into the penalty box in the first few minutes of a match, and then stands there and physically blocks them from leaving the box, the player in the box is not "playing" the game.
Being hooked is a normal part of the DBD gameplay loop. The brief periods of being hooked are fine because it is part of the shifting objectives of the game. A killer camping someone to death on first hook is breaking the flow of the game. It isn't that being hooked is an issue, it is that forcing someone to stay hooked is short-circuiting their death. You are forcing them to miss the gameplay loop, forcing them to not really be able to play the game.
The type of camping I'm primarily talking about is when a killer hooks someone and camps until they die on first hook. That means the killer is ignoring their own gameplay loop as well. They should be chasing people, damaging gens, etc... but instead they are just standing around waiting for someone to die. It breaks the game to do that, especially from the start of a match, and imo it also violates the EULA due to the survivor not being able to even really attempt to play the game for that match.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882272#Comment_2882272
There was a time long ago when if you stood right in front of someone on hook you basically blocked them from being unhooked. True face camping.
They fixed this by making unhooks possbile from all angles. (rotational unhooks).
The counter to modern face camping is smashing out gens and coordinated saves. Its not easy but its possible. If you are getting grabbed during the unhook you aren't baiting the hit.
New players get caught by this, its why it works well at low mmr, veteran players get really tilted by this and make bad plays as a result, its why it works at high mmr.
Its not the most interactive play but when you aren't getting good return from commiting to chases switching up to hook defence often pays off.
You've grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this line... "Rules of Conduct", it says it is a violation of the Terms of Use to "Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide a BHVR Service for the enjoyment of all its users."
It does not mean "I didn't have fun, so it's my opponents fault ban them" that's idiotic.
That is a "counter" in a team sense, like if you are assuming a 4-person SWF who thinks of themselves as a team, but "smashing out gens" does nothing to help the one person being camped to death on first hook. They lose pips, lose out on bloodpoints, can't complete challenges, and ultimately just can't play the game. That is the problem. It's not about what "wins" or not, it is about one person being prematurely forced out of the game. It would reduce the harm somewhat to give camped survivors more points, but that ultimately doesn't solve the issue of them not being able to play.
"Rotational" unhooks don't stop the killer from picking up the survivor during the unhook animation, nor do they stop the killer from tunneling the person who was on the hook and hooking them again (something these killers often do, even when someone used BT). That is the kind of behavior I think should be reportable. There are plenty of scenarios when a killer might stay near a hook for a bit to bait people out or determine where other survivors are, and that's fine because...they are going to be chasing other survivors when they get the chance. That's not what I'm talking about. I only mean persistent, stubborn camping of one specific survivor until they die, thus removing all ability for them to really play the game.
-
@Starrseed said:
We see a bunch of threads about camping nearly every day.
To get things clear I am a killer main and I am 100% against camping except I can see that it is a tacticall move in endgame situations.
The devs said multiple time they are working on something. It's not like they stop if people stop raging. But from what I can see here often people don't care. They act like all of us are bad people and all of us camp and but us in a bad light and often just want some crazy stuff like bans or zones that make you hit immune.
So I asked my self do they really want a good solution that works and let's the game heal and prevail or do they just want all killer gone and they game dead
I have played killer on and off some, but I mainly play survivor and I want everyone to be having fun. That's actually why I think hard camping is a problem. Some killers may find it "fun" (though, I don't know why since it is so low interaction), but either way the "fun" tradeoff is just way too lopsided for hard camping. In an asymmetrical game like DBD, you want both "sides" to be having fun overall, and camping reduces fun for everyone, but especially the person stuck on the hook completely unable to play the game. That person's negative experience is why I think hard camping someone from the start should be reportable.
I'm someone who posted a thread about camping in the feedback forum, and honestly at least from my perspective, the main kind of camping I think should be bannable is when a killer finds one survivor, hooks them, then stands there until they die on first hook, ignoring any other survivors who come by other than to stop them from unhooking. They don't chase people or anything, just watch the hook until the person dies. Other kinds of "camping" may be up for debate, but that one really isn't. It's just bad for the game and imo violates the EULA (as I said in my thread).
I don't think "all killers are bad people". Not at all. I have friends who main killer, some with thousands of hours in this game, and guess what? They never camp someone to death in the way I am describing. The first chance they get, they will go chase someone. That is what should be encouraged. Hard camping reduces gameplay interaction, including that of the killer who's doing it.
For late-game camping, I agree it is a different situation. If a killer hasn't camped the whole game, whatever system is in place should handle it differently. I do still think there should be more of a tradeoff or meaningful choice for killers who choose to camp out 1 survivor when only 2 are left etc (maybe something like...the other survivor can see the hatch, not its aura but the physical hatch, if the killer is standing next to the other person on the hook), but it's not the same as when they camp someone to death at the start of a match.
I agree that the best solution would be gameplay features that discourage the behavior (something built-in similar to the way circling crows discourage survivors from standing still too long), however the specific type of camping where a killer picks 1 survivor and completely prevents their ability to play the game should be reportable/bannable in my opinion. Everything else can be handled through gameplay stuff that just tries to encourage fun.
I don't think hard camping is all that common when you get above a certain MMR, but for newer players it is way too common and I think newer killers need to be coached into understanding why camping isn't ideal, even for their own success. In lower MMR, a lot of killers get 4K's by camping, so they think it's "viable" or "good".
-
@Advorsus said:
Y'all keep saying the same thing. But if the killer isn't camping, they just hook and leave, and the other 3 survivors don't save you, they should all 3 be bannable right? The results are the same. You were stuck on hook for the entire time, they kept you from being able to play the game because the let you die on hook. So all 3 should be banned right?
It's ridiculous to apply it to one side but not the other. DBD would have no players at that point.
It's a bit different with the survivors because they aren't standing there forcing you to stay on the hook, but I do think survivors refusing to help the team is a separate issue. I don't know that it would be "bannable" because they didn't put the person on the hook and they aren't keeping them on the hook.
I don't think slippery meat is a real solution to this stuff, but if the killer isn't standing there, technically you could boost your luck and jump off the hook on your own. You at least have some options if you find that survivors are often not unhooking you. That doesn't work for camping though...they will just hit you since they are standing right there. So, it's different.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882496#Comment_2882496
Have you seen footage of skilled “bully squads”? They sure as hell do prevent killers from enjoying or progressing the game.
Then they are absolutely violating the same rule. Survivors are not immune to this either and should be held to the same standard, I 100% agree with that, but it is separate from the specific issue of camping that I highlighted.
-
@Yords said:
"Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide a BHVR Service for the enjoyment of all its users."
According to this statement then people should be able to report each other for just about anything that is deemed unfun by the other side.
You could report a player for using flashlights, or using dead hard if you take this too literally.
Using flashlights or dead hard, etc... is not preventing someone's ability from playing or enjoying the challenge of playing. Camping someone to death on first hook doesn't allow them to even play. They can't progress, they have no good options. They don't get another chance. It is different from all of those other examples.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882480#Comment_2882480
Not if being Camped is part of the game. Then it just means you are not enjoying the Service you are supposed to.
Not enjoying the game is different from being prevented from playing the game. If someone doesn't like hooks at all, they just don't like the game. Someone being camped to death on first hook is not even able to play. It's very different.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882474#Comment_2882474
Being on a hook is part of the game, You could equally argue being hooked robs you of your ability to play.
LOL the devs are gonna have a chuckle about this one for sure.
Being on hook is part of the game, being camped on 1st hook so you cannot play the game is not. I'm not complaining about hooks in general, that is part of the game. There is a gameplay loop that involves being hooked sometimes. That is fine. What's not fine is a killer forcing that loop to a halt for one player and not allowing them the ability to play the game.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882375#Comment_2882375
I think the issue is that you're under the impression that camping is unacceptable behavior. The people who made the game have sad and written multiple times that is not the case and the way these agreements work is that the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the entity that owns the platform. If we went the way your proposing the game simply could not exist because people would just call out anything that impeded their overall enjoyment of the game as an offense in need of punishment. While the devs and support staff wouldn't be obligated to act of frivolous claims the sheer amount of claims would be damaging.
Same with using third party programs, they can't actually actively monitor your system nor would you want them to have that level of access for a number of reasons hence they don't bother with taking actions on the use of teamspeak, discord, etc. Besides the very obvious things like exploiting and hacking, the only thing a player can really do that would break TOS is hold the game hostage which has become very difficult to due unless you hack. That has been the most consistent standard for a long time, like if someone traps you in a corner and just never lets you leave that is TOS breaking. If someone just stares at you until the entity eats you that doesn't really meet the bar as the game progressed normally just not in an equally entertaining way for both parties. That's an important distinction because a lot of what this game is designed for places players in positions where the adversarial nature of the game can really close to what could be seen as TOS breaking in any other game. As long as the game can progress to its proper endpoint and you're not doing any of the other things that break TOS in DBD you're usually fine.
Then they need to change their EULA to allow for preventing people to enjoy the game, because that is what this is. This is my whole point. The devs saying camping is "acceptable" violates their own EULA.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882466#Comment_2882466
You are using the words in the BHVR account EULA and trying to apply them to actions inside DBD when they do not apply.
A killer camping you to death is not preventing you from playing DBD. You were still engaging with survivor gameplay elements the entire time. If being camped in a match somehow prevented you from playing another match of DBD, then the EULA would apply.
Not to mention that the devs have already stated that camping is not a bannable offense.
You have no real point.
Cite some reference for why the EULA doesn't apply to actions inside the game. Other parts of the SAME list of items I referenced specifically talk about actions which would be use within the game, as I've already mentioned.
The EULA and TOS are documents which govern player behavior and code of conduct...while playing the game. It's not like they magically don't apply to the game itself, that makes no sense. If someone verbally harasses someone in the in-game chat it isn't magically okay because it's "in game". I really do not understand your logic.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882464#Comment_2882464
No, cause Camping is an outcome of the way the game is played. You still have the ability to enjoy it, you are just not skilled enough to do it.
Its a nice try, but April 1st was yesterday.
You can't play the game, let alone enjoy it, if you are stuck on first hook until you die. If that happens because a killer is standing there camping you, they are actively preventing you from even participating in the match.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882455#Comment_2882455
The EULA is different from rules specific to DBD.
Interfering with someone's ability to play BHVR games is in the EULA and is about preventing someone from playing the game in the first place.
Holding the game hostage is a specific DBD rule you can report players for in DBD and this is a very specific use case that largely doesn't exist due to changes the devs have already added to the game. Since even a killer body blocking a survivor in the corner will still likely lead to the game ending, but still falls under holding the game hostage since no attempt was being made to end the game on the killer.
If they wanted those parts of the EULA, which is a legal contract, to be limited to preventing someone's ability to launch the game, or access the game, etc... they would have said that. Instead they used the language "enjoy playing BHVR services". That language is more broad and absolutely includes in-game behaviors that prevent others from engaging in normal gameplay and having the ability to play/enjoy the game. Lawyers will not use broad terms like that if they mean something more specific.
-
@Emeal said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/8CJPN08F7J8G/image.png
Thanks Tom. Nice try tho Survivors, better luck next time.
That is exactly my point. Including camping on the list of "non bannable" offenses contradicts the EULA. Here is a quote from the official rules post on these forums: "In case of conflict between the EULA and this page, the EULA will prevail."
-
@TragicSolitude said:
So, if the killer stops me from doing gens, I should be able to report them because the only thing I enjoy doing is gens? I mean, if the killer doesn't let me work on the gen, they are totally interfering with my ability to enjoy the game.
(If it's not obvious, I'm being sarcastic, because what each person "enjoys" is completely subjective and not something that can be forced upon other players.)
I know being hooked isn't fun and I've complained about that multiple times on these forums, but it is part of normal gameplay. Let me stress this: the survivor being on a hook is part of the gameplay. A killer's goal is to put survivors on hooks. A survivor being blocked in a corner unable to die or work on gens is not part of normal gameplay, because forcing a survivor to stand around for ten minutes doing nothing is nobody's objective.
No one likes being camped on the hook, but it's not bannable. No matter how you try to reinterpret the rules, it's not bannable. Can you imagine if it were? Every single match would result in a report because the killer didn't immediately walk away from the hook, and the staff at BHVR would actually have to look at each and every support ticket. It would completely clog up the report system. It's not enforceable.
Don't criticize the players who are playing within the game's rules. Criticize the game mechanics. Being stuck on a hook unable to do anything isn't fun. Being slugged unable to do anything isn't fun. And being taken out of a game within 60 seconds of loading in isn't fun. Wait, why is anyone playing survivor at all?
No, you're misunderstanding. It's not about gameplay preferences, camping is blocking someone from being able to play *at all*. There is a huge difference.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882395#Comment_2882395
And that kind of body blocking is actually bannable iirc.
Being camped on hook where you are engaging normal game mechanics is not bannable.
Hooking someone, and standing there staring at them, ignoring all other survivors until that person dies on first hook, is not "engaging in normal game mechanics" and it is functionally equivalent to body blocking someone into a corner until they bleed out.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882382#Comment_2882382
Because you are taking a rule about interfering with your ability to play a match by complaining about the actions inside the match. Being camped in a match does not prevent you from playing more matches.
It being common or not does not change the fact you at no point are being prevented from playing the game.
If a survivor hides in a corner, and a killer runs up and just stands there blocking them in, that is another example of actions "inside the match" preventing someone from playing the game. Just because it happens in the match, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the EULA/TOS. Just like how other items in that same list prohibit exploiting bugs or using macros. Those are all in-game actions. It's not as if "anything goes" just because it is within the game.
-
@Advorsus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882354#Comment_2882354
And if camping completely prevented people from saving or unhooking someone then no one would get saved ever. It simply punishes them for doing so. It does not prevent unhooking, nor does it keep you from doing objectives. And I have read it, so have other people, and we're telling you that you're misinterpreting to fit your narrative. Camping doesn't fit within it at all, but you're trying to twist it to fit as if it'll actually do anything significant. No one cares mate
Camping, usually, is detrimental for a killer's success, but many killers aren't trying to play "optimally"... they just want to kill people. I have had multiple tell me they don't care about what gets the most points. Camping, doesn't perfectly prevent unhooks, but it nearly does, and if the team sacrifices themselves to do so ... they're really not much better off. The killer is getting "free" hits, they'll likely get to hook someone again (maybe even the same person who was already hooked) etc...
Also, none of this addresses the fact that this only matters IF the team tries to help the camped person. Often, it is suggested to just let them die because the survivors can "punish" a camping killer by rushing gens. That may be true, but it doesn't allow the camped person to play the damn game lol
-
@Advorsus said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882318#Comment_2882318
I would have to agree. You are still technically playing the game. Whether you're running around, sitting on a gen, or sitting on a hook.
If you were hooked, and the killer left to go do whatever else, and your teammates never came and saved you because they were doing gens or healing or whatever, and you died on hook, should your teammates therefore be banned because they didn't drop everything to come save you? No that would be ridiculous right? But either way, the results are the same. The gameplay experience is still the same. You're still not having fun right? So that would mean that every other survivor should be banned along with whatever they were doing. It simply doesn't make sense.
I believe you're simply taking a single sentence out of context to justify your being upset because you lost a specific match. Especially since someone from behavior already told you in another post you made about the same thing, that you're misinterpreting the terms and rules.
No...this is an issue that has been part of this game for a long time, and recently camping has become more popular it seems. I'm not "salty" about a specific match, I'm pointing out a valid problem with a toxic playstyle. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, I did not "take a sentence out of context". That section of the EULA/TOS deals with other unacceptable behaviors related to how people use the game. It applies to both gameplay and use of BHVR services, as evidenced by the other examples in that same list regarding exploiting bugs, using macros, etc...
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882345#Comment_2882345
You not being saved on hook and dying it not interfering with your ability to play.
You can always queue up and play another match.
If you get camped every match, you're not able to play the game. Therefore, camping interferes with your ability to play. You just may be fortunate to not have it happen every game.
-
@Advorsus said:
While I don't condone camping or tunneling, I'm pretty sure that line of text you're using is being taken out of context and twisted to mean something else.
If we were to take it as you are using it, then it would also be safe to say that body blocking to keep a killer from hooking, body blocking with bt, flashlight spam clicking, 360ing to deny hits, all interfere with not only the killer's fun, but also their ability to complete their objectives. Especially the flashlight spam clicking that keeps anyone with epilepsy, a serious medical condition, from even playing the game.
This doesn't even include the constant tea bagging and BMing that happens that can interfere with other player's fun...
I did not take it out of context, and I provided a link to the document. You can go read it for yourself if you want.
The things you listed do not interfere with killers' ability to play the game:
- Body blocking to keep a killer from hooking doesn't prevent them from their objective, it slows them down. They can attack the survivors in their way and knock them down. If the hooks were too far away to the point where everyone could wiggle out in time, and no one would be knocked down in the process, then sure it should be adjusted but that doesn't seem to be the case.
- Flashlight spam clicking may be annoying, but it doesn't block anyone from doing anything. If it is an epilepsy concern, maybe there is a valid reason to put a cooldown so the flicker has a maximum speed or something, however this doesn't really dispute what I said, it is just a separate issue.
- 360ing to "deny" hits is just dodging...that isn't interfering with anything. Both players are on equal footing able to continue the chase. They both have actions they can take to pursue their objectives.
Tea bagging and BMing are also separate issues irrelevant to this. Just because there are other issues that may need to be addressed, doesn't mean this one is any less valid.
-
@Crowman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882293#Comment_2882293
Your ability to play DBD is not being interfered by being camped.
You may not like it, but being on a hook is simply a part of survivor gameplay.
Saying it again doesn't make it any less wrong. You have not explained how it isn't interfering with playing DBD. You literally cannot play the game if you are stuck on a hook with a killer staring at you until you die. You can try to jump off, you will probably fail, and then die faster. If you succeed, the killer is standing right there and will just hit you and hook you again. Hooking/unhooking is part of the gameplay loop, camping circumvents that loop and literally stops someone from playing the game. Sitting on a hook is not "playing". It is a necessary stage for the way the game works, yes, but if you are forcibly prevented from moving on to other parts of the game (healing, running, doing gens, etc...) and forced to stay on the hook, incapacitated ... that is obviously interfering with your ability to play. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise, but if you can make a case for that, go for it. Just saying "no it's not" is not a valid argument.
-
@Crowman said:
Being camped in DBD does not interfere with your ability to enjoy DBD.
You always have the option of attempting to get yourself off hook and not hitting the 2nd skillchecks to let yourself die faster so you can move onto the next game.
And if you get camped again in the next game? Or if you're not playing alone so you have to wait until a friend escapes or dies? No, it really does interfere with your ability to play the game, let alone enjoy it.
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2882266#Comment_2882266
no, I mean, there's no reason to leave the hook if literally the entire team is going to give you free hits.
I'm not advocating camping. very few people enjoy camping.
I'm saying, if a group of people make a stupid decision, it's not abuse of terms of service to capitalize on their lapse in judgement.
That's like saying getting a flashlight save is abuse.
I guess yeah, if the other players rush the hook before giving the killer a chance to leave, sure. Usually though it doesn't seem like that's what happens. They group up to try to combat the camping bc they don't want to just leave someone hanging until they die.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/317263/camping-contradicts-bhvrs-terms-of-use
Your complaint has already been addressed and fixed by making unhooks rotational so that you can't just block a hook and prevent unhooks. True face camping from back in the day.
If your team fails to rescue you in a coordinated manner that's on them.
This is...completely unfounded. Unhooks are rotational? What are you talking about. Multiple games this week, someone in my game has been hooked, then the killer stands there and waits for them to die. If someone tries to unhook, the killer can pull them off.
-
@Mandy said:
I'm sorry but that is a misinterpretation of the EULA/ToS - part of the game cannot be considered under this section. The ToS/EULA is referring to things that are against the game rules. The EULA/ToS work in conjunction with the game rules, not against them.
In the official "Game Rules & Report System" post on this forum, it says "In case of conflict between the EULA and this page, the EULA will prevail."
-
@Bennett_They1Them said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/317263/camping-contradicts-bhvrs-terms-of-use
Facecamping, yes.
chasing in the area/preventing a swf from divebombing the hook uncontested - no.
If the killer leaves to chase someone then yeah I agree, even if they're still nearby. It gives another survivor a chance to try to unhook.
-
@ItsJesseFFS said:
Honestly, so does tunneling. It's also the exact basic definition of "unsportsmanlike".
I agree, but that one is more complicated since in some cases it can be accidental or unavoidable (some subtle game visual indicators could help with that though)
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
There are a lot of things that seemingly violate the rules but aren't punished.
For example, AFKing and refusing to partake in normal gameplay are listed as a reportable offenses but the devs have stated that The Pig AFKing infront of Jigsaw Boxes is fine. Even though it can guarantee a survivor's death while the killer isn't even at their keyboard. It's nonsensical and I've honestly given up trying to wrap my head around BHVR's stance on things because they're so inconsistent with their application of the rules.
Yeah, I agree. I think anything which intentionally reduces game interaction or otherwise prevents people from doing their objectives/progressing/playing the game in general, etc... should be discouraged. This includes going AFK/standing idly anywhere (both survivors and killers), camping, certain types of tunneling (though maybe not all tunneling), survivors ignoring objectives in lieu of just continuously harassing/taunting the killer, etc...
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2879466#Comment_2879466
The devs have addressed it hundreds of times: it's fine. People can play how they want. Base kit BT is coming at some point.
Also be realistic. What is camping? What is tunneling? Is what the OP complaining about actually those things, or is it merely their perception and confirmation bias? Because that's the case more often than not.
Maybe, but it is an unacceptable answer and the game will die if camping/tunneling stays popular like this. It is objectively less fun when killers primarily camp and tunnel, thus it is bad for the game. No one wants to play something where many of their matches end before they get a chance to do anything. BT and the other handful of options to "counter" this don't fix the issue, and for lower MMR, the game does not coach players toward how to cope with toxic strategies, nor does it really discourage them in any effective way.
For DBD to continue, BHVR really needs to cut ties with anyone who supports camping and tunneling one survivor from the start until they are dead, and they need to implement gameplay changes to make it ineffective for killers to play that way. They can buff other aspects of killers to compensate if needed, but that gameplay needs to go. It is poor game design to allow one player to be prevented from playing the game due to actions of other players. You don't preserve the fun of one player at the expense of 4 others. You want mechanics that are fun for both killers and survivors, and camping/tunneling are not that at all. Not even close.